Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-09511
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Judge Furman authorized alternative service on Armon Warren and granted related redaction and sealing requests.
Amalgamated Bank received permission to use alternative service and to redact and seal specified materials. Armon Warren is the defendant to be served. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the other participants in the case are affected by the service-related order, but the order does not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Armon Warren concerns Amalgamated Bank’s difficulty serving Warren with the lawsuit. The plaintiff said repeated attempts at several addresses had failed and proposed using email, Instagram, and mail sent through businesses connected to Warren.
The court found that traditional service was impractical and that the five proposed methods, taken together, were reasonably likely to notify Warren and give him an opportunity to respond. It granted the request for alternative service and extended the deadline to April 10, 2024. It also granted the request to redact parts of the plaintiff’s letter and keep Exhibit 6 under seal.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Amalgamated to serve the listed documents and a copy of the order by each of the five proposed methods. The clerk was directed to terminate three docket entries.
The detailed version
- Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:23-cv-09511
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
Amalgamated Bank sought permission to serve the summons, complaint, and certain other filings on Armon Warren by alternative means. According to the plaintiff’s motion, repeated attempts by Amalgamated and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to serve Warren at several addresses in Georgia and California were unsuccessful. The motion stated that Warren was active on social media and could likely be notified through alternative methods.
The underlying dispute concerns Amalgamated’s effort to recover more than $400,000 that it says Warren obtained after depositing an altered check into a Chase account and withdrawing the funds. The court’s order addressed service and sealing; it did not decide that underlying dispute.
Alternative Service
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(5) permit court-ordered alternative service when traditional service is impracticable. The court granted Amalgamated’s letter motion for permission to use alternative service, substantially for the reasons stated in the motion and its exhibits.
The court found that traditional service had proved impracticable and that the proposed methods, considered together, were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to notify Warren of the lawsuit and give him an opportunity to respond. The five approved methods were service through two email addresses, Warren’s Instagram account, mail addressed to Warren through Ar’mon and Trey LLC, mail addressed to Warren through ArmoneyMerch LLC, and mail sent to Warren at the address he had provided on the check at issue.
The court extended the service deadline through April 10, 2024. It required Amalgamated to serve the documents listed in Appendix A, along with a copy of the order, by each of the five proposed alternative methods.
Redaction and Sealing
The court also granted Amalgamated’s motion to redact portions of its letter motion and maintain Exhibit 6 under seal. The court cited the privacy interests associated with keeping personally identifying information under seal. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 29, 30, and 31.
Disposition
The motion for alternative service was granted. The motion to redact portions of the letter motion and maintain Exhibit 6 under seal was also granted. The order did not resolve the merits of Amalgamated’s claims against Chase or Warren.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.